
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment-Assignment 3 - Module 1: Material declaration-Yaqi Liao
Material efciency and circular economy
an apartment buildings in Finland
29.7% of the material used in the projected is circular materials. 53.1% of the materials
could be used for recycling, downcyling and energy instead of disposal.
General Information
Gross Floor Area (m2): 114
Number of above ground floors: 2
Frame type: timber
Service life:50 years
Certifications pursued: Rakennuksen vähähiilisyyden arviointi (Ympäristöministeriö)
Total(tons) Virgin % Materials
Recovered % Disposal %
Downcycling
and use as
energy %
Recycling
and reuse as
material %
Materials
Returned % Circularity%
Concrete 73,57 98,4 1,6 100 50 25,8
Metals 7,93 1,58 98,42 100 100 99,21
Bricks and
ceramics 6,28 100 0 100 50 25
Gypsum-
based 0,37 80 20 100 100 60
Insulation 1,38 43,73 56,27 75,02 24,98 12,49 34,38
Glass 0,36 54,2 45,8 100 100 72,9
Wood and
biogenic 23,42 −0 105,76 100 50 77,88
Earth masses
and asphalt 13,29 100 0 100 50 25
Other
materials 0,71 73,39 26,61 7,17 92,83 92,83 59,72
Downcycling
(tons)
80
13
4
97
Energy
(tons)
24
4
1
29
Disposal
(tons)
1
0
0
1
Result category
Construction Materials
Earth masses, asphalt
and stones
Construction site -
material wastage
Material replacement
and refurbishment
Total
Virgin
(tons)
79.07
13.29
3.69
0.057
96.11
Total
(tons)
114.03
13.29
8.4
1.09
136.8
Renewable
(tons)
22.81
0
3.84
1.03
27.67
Recycled
(tons)
12.15
0
0.88
0
13.03
Recycling
(tons)
9
0
10
Building Materials Circularity
Virgin
Recycled
Renewable
Origin of materials
Utilisation potential of materials after use
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment-Assignment 3 - Module 1: Material declaration-Yaqi Liao
Material efciency and circular economy
an apartment buildings in Finland
29.7% of the material used in the projected is circular materials. 53.1% of the materials
could be used for recycling, downcyling and energy instead of disposal.
General Information
Gross Floor Area (m2): 114
Number of above ground floors: 2
Frame type: timber
Service life:50 years
Certifications pursued: Rakennuksen vähähiilisyyden arviointi (Ympäristöministeriö)
Total(tons) Virgin % Materials
Recovered % Disposal %
Downcycling
and use as
energy %
Recycling
and reuse as
material %
Materials
Returned % Circularity%
Concrete 73,57 98,4 1,6 100 50 25,8
Metals 7,93 1,58 98,42 100 100 99,21
Bricks and
ceramics 6,28 100 0 100 50 25
Gypsum-
based 0,37 80 20 100 100 60
Insulation 1,38 43,73 56,27 75,02 24,98 12,49 34,38
Glass 0,36 54,2 45,8 100 100 72,9
Wood and
biogenic 23,42 −0 105,76 100 50 77,88
Earth masses
and asphalt 13,29 100 0 100 50 25
Other
materials 0,71 73,39 26,61 7,17 92,83 92,83 59,72
Downcycling
(tons)
80
13
4
97
Energy
(tons)
24
4
1
29
Disposal
(tons)
1
0
0
1
Result category
Construction Materials
Earth masses, asphalt
and stones
Construction site -
material wastage
Material replacement
and refurbishment
Total
Virgin
(tons)
79.07
13.29
3.69
0.057
96.11
Total
(tons)
114.03
13.29
8.4
1.09
136.8
Renewable
(tons)
22.81
0
3.84
1.03
27.67
Recycled
(tons)
12.15
0
0.88
0
13.03
Recycling
(tons)
9
0
10
Building Materials Circularity
Virgin
Downcycling
Disposal Recycling
Energy
Utilisation potential of materials after use
Total(tons)
Concrete 73,57
Metals 7,93
Bricks and ceramics 6,28
Gypsum-based 0,37
Insulation 1,38
Glass 0,36
Wood and biogenic 23,42
Earth masses and asphalt 13,29
Other materials 0,71
139
34
Emissions before use
A1-A5
B3-4,B6
C
Use phase emissions
End of life impacts
Carbon storage, biogenic
Carbonisation
Benefits from reuse and recycling
Circular economy
Climate
Caused harms Potential benets
Energy Class
Districution of climate impacts
(kg CO2e/m2/a)
Materials
Carbon footprint
+21.62kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon Handprint
- 19.96kg CO2e/m2/a
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
Topup heating
-> District heating
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
89 TONNES CO2E
Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Conclusion and Reection
The built environment industry, together with current
regulations and practices, is seriously lagging be-
hind the carbon trajectory required to protect life on
planet Earth. Everyone’s future is at stake. As an in-
dustry, we must be absolutely condent that all new
buildings can operate at net zero carbon from 2030.
In order to achieve this, we need sustainablity tools
to understand factors that inuenced carbon emis-
sions as a designer. We should also use these tools
to help our clients to make better choices in the de-
sign stage. Sustainablity is not only about materials
and energy. It was also impacted by the environ-
ment, social regulation and the economy.
I was motivated by my curiosity about the carbon
emission of different wood structure designs. CLT is
not always the best for construction. In our alterna-
tive design, we could see both timber frame struc-
tures and post and beam structures have less car-
bon emission. This is because of the huge decrease
in solid massive timber, which was replaced by the
stud frame or post and beam as load-bearing struc-
ture. At the same time, in order to achieve the same
u-value, we add more insulation, which performed
better than CLT. In this case, the inuence on the in-
crease of usage of insulation will be reduced by less
energy consumption. We could argue that CLT is not
the best option for this small building design in the
aspect of material usage and energy consumption.
Although the number is straightforward, I realized
that there is no 100% angel or demon version of the
design. CLT has a more carbon footprint than Glu-
lam, but it is more sustainable and contained more
carbon handprint. (page 25) In this case, CLT is bet-
ter than the Glulam structure. At the same time, CLT
is easier to construct on-site.
Then why there is a lot of promotion on CLT? It was
because sustainablity is not only about materials
and energy. In regard to energy system choice, we
could see the huge development of better system
choices. This will cost more money on installation
and manufacture. It might be better to use a timber
frame in this design. However, if we have a higher
requirement on u-value, we need thicker insulation
which the product we used does not have equivalent
thickness. The insulation usage and consumption
might produce more carbon footprint compared with
CLT. That might explain why timber frame is more
popular in a small-scale project like a residential
house, whereas post and beam structure is better
for a large-scale building like an ofce building.
The sustainablity report is a tool to help both us and
the clients to understand what elements inuence
the environment. We could use this tool to compare
how different choices of material, energy systems
and green factors impact each other to decide the
better solution for sustainablity in the future. The
sustainablity is not only about using greener materi-
als, and smarter systems, instead, we had more sol-
id processes and tools to demonstrate the result. In
the end, we all take the responsibility to net zero car-
bon as a designer in the future design for our planet.
Personal reection on what we learned and how we plan to apply it in
the future.
The sustainable design
response to Climate